Explainable artificial intelligence is increasingly used in machine learning (ML) based decision-making systems in healthcare. However, little research has compared the utility of different explanation methods in guiding healthcare experts for patient care. Moreover, it is unclear how useful, understandable, actionable and trustworthy these methods are for healthcare experts, as they often require technical ML knowledge. This paper presents an explanation dashboard that predicts the risk of diabetes onset and explains those predictions with data-centric, feature-importance, and example-based explanations. We designed an interactive dashboard to assist healthcare experts, such as nurses and physicians, in monitoring the risk of diabetes onset and recommending measures to minimize risk. We conducted a qualitative study with 11 healthcare experts and a mixed-methods study with 45 healthcare experts and 51 diabetic patients to compare the different explanation methods in our dashboard in terms of understandability, usefulness, actionability, and trust. Results indicate that our participants preferred our representation of data-centric explanations that provide local explanations with a global overview over other methods. Therefore, this paper highlights the importance of visually directive data-centric explanation method for assisting healthcare experts to gain actionable insights from patient health records. Furthermore, we share our design implications for tailoring the visual representation of different explanation methods for healthcare experts.

Several social factors impact how people respond to AI explanations used to justify AI decisions affecting them personally. In this position paper, we define a framework called the \textit{layers of explanation} (LEx), a lens through which we can assess the appropriateness of different types of explanations. The framework uses the notions of \textit{sensitivity} (emotional responsiveness) of features and the level of \textit{stakes} (decision's consequence) in a domain to determine whether different types of explanations are \textit{appropriate} in a given context. We demonstrate how to use the framework to assess the appropriateness of different types of explanations in different domains.

This paper investigates the prospects of using directive explanations to assist people in achieving recourse of machine learning decisions. Directive explanations list which specific actions an individual needs to take to achieve their desired outcome. If a machine learning model makes a decision that is detrimental to an individual (e.g. denying a loan application), then it needs to both explain why it made that decision and also explain how the individual could obtain their desired outcome (if possible). At present, this is often done using counterfactual explanations, but such explanations generally do not tell individuals how to act. We assert that counterfactual explanations can be improved by explicitly providing people with actions they could use to achieve their desired goal. This paper makes two contributions. First, we present the results of an online study investigating people's perception of directive explanations. Second, we propose a conceptual model to generate such explanations. Our online study showed a significant preference for directive explanations ($p<0.001$). However, the participants' preferred explanation type was affected by multiple factors, such as individual preferences, social factors, and the feasibility of the directives. Our findings highlight the need for a human-centred and context-specific approach for creating directive explanations.